“agricultural income”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(1A) / Rule 7, 7A, 7B(1), 7B(1A), 82,868 judgments

The decision most relied on for agricultural income is CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF) (315 ITR 1), cited in 363 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on agricultural income

CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF)

315 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court

363

citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is considered part of the enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition of land. It is taxable as 'capital gains' and not separately as 'interest income' under the head Income from Other Sources.

CIT v. Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd.

389 ITR 68 · 2016 · High Court

192

citing judgments

Income earned by a cooperative society from investing its surplus funds in short-term deposits and securities is not attributable to its core activities and therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT

414 ITR 67 · 2019 · High Court

190

citing judgments

The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court held that a co-operative bank or society is not entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act if it provides loans to non-members. This decision was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court.

Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO

298 ITR 349 · 2008 · High Court

187

citing judgments

Cash receipts from customers against genuine delivery of goods or services cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The case also provides guidance on non-disallowance under Section 40A(3) for business payments made in specific contexts like agricultural markets.

Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer

154 Taxmann.com 305 · 2023 · Supreme Court

136

citing judgments

Section 80P(4) is not applicable to a cooperative bank unless it is classified as a 'bank' under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. For cooperative banks not meeting this definition, the deduction for interest earned from investments in cooperative societies is available under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy

32 ITR 466 · 1957 · Supreme Court

132

citing judgments

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

Sabarkhanta Zilla Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. v. ClT

203 ITR 1027 · 1993 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Co-operative societies or banks engaged in both agricultural and non-agricultural activities are entitled to deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, limited only to the profits derived from agricultural activities, not 100% of their gross profits.

CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.

301 ITR 384 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

An addition cannot be made under Section 68 for cash credits if it is established that the credits do not pertain to the impugned assessment year but relate to earlier assessment years.

Judgments citing agricultural income

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

ITA 1178/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

estate / construction business as well as lottery business. He filed his return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.12,66,372/- and agricultural income of Rs.7,22,800/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Subsequently ... Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.01.2014 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,17,230/- and agricultural income of Rs.7,22,800/-. 3. Subsequently, a search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee

Gaurav Goyal (HUF), Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Mathura

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/AGR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.217/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Gaurav Goyal (Huf) Ito Ward 1(3)(1) बनाम/ D-63,64, Shri Radhapuram Mathura Vs. Krishna Nagar, Mathura – 281 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafhg-3017-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2025

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-09-2022. In the assessment order, Ld. AO treated the agricultural income of Rs.25.87 Lacs as ‘income from other sources’ since the assessee failed to substantiate the same. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the first

Sangeeta Roy, Jamshedpur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Jamshedpur

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 179/RAN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Feb 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

authorised representative for making timely compliance before the department. During the course of compliance, certain document dated 18/01/2018 detailing agriculture income (sale of milk) was filed through signature of CA Braj Kishore Jha. The said document did not belong to assessee and appears to have been inadvertently furnished before ... also did not inform the assessee of the inadvertent mistake so committed. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee has earned agricultural income by sale of wheat, paddy and other crops and declared the same in the return of income so filed

Sangeeta Roy, Gamharia vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Jameshedpur, Jamshedpur

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/RAN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Jayprakash Yashwantbhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (Previously Ward-2), Anand

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1787/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Belani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee filed return of income on 03.09.2018, declaring Nil income which was categorized under "Income from Other Sources." The assessee has also claimed exempt agricultural income of Rs. 30,31,250/-. In conclusion, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment under Section 147 read with Section ... novo consideration. We, therefore, set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration of earning of agricultural income and the cash deposit thereof. The assessee shall comply to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) from time to time without seeking unnecessary

Jayprakash Yashwantbhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (Previously Ward-2), Anand

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1762/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Belani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

DCIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Pavan Kumar B Chandan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2592/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr.DR)

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

facie evidence, the purchases of shares have been contemporaneously entered into the books of account of the assessee. 10.2 The assessee has been declaring agricultural income in his returns of income for the assessment years from 1990-91 to 2001-02. The total agricultural income returned by the assessee ... purchase of shares as on 31-3-1999 was Rs. 4,48,160. The cash available with the assessee by way of agricultural income was much higher than the investment made by the assessee in the purchase of shares as on 31-3-1999. After making the investments

Paresh Ramanbhai Amin, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Anand

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1839/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 68

appreciated the facts that the said amount are paid in cash by the wife of the appellant out of her Agriculture income. The aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to each other and the appellant craves leave to add/delete/alter and/or amend any of grounds as aforesaid as and when necessary ... Rs.1,04,588/- in respect of investment in LIC is unexplained . The assessee also explained the investment is from her wife out of her agricultural income which is reflecting in the Return of Income filed by her, without considering the same, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition which

Chittikumari Kona, Vijayawada vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, New Delhi

ITA 322/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Section 139Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री के

Mujmmeel, Kota vs. ACIT-Central Circle, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Miss. Swatika Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT a

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69A

ACIT assessee filed his ITR u/s 139 for the A.Y. 2020-21 on 20.11.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 4,61,600/- and agricultural income of Rs. 45,500/-. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Board ... conducted in the case of assessee on 02.03.2020. During the year, the assessee earned commission income from real estate transactions and reported agricultural income. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on account

Dhas Kishor Ramchandra, Aurangabad vs. Dwarkaprasad Bhikulal Soni, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1188/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 132(4)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 69C

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance made of Rs.1,49,910/- out of agricultural income only on the basis of land holding ignoring the fact that assessee could not produce any supporting documentary evidences with respect to the agricultural activities ... Rs.23,10,817/- Bungalow u/s 69 5. Addition on account of cash transaction u/s Rs.1,00,000/- 69A 6. Addition on account of agricultural income Rs.1,49,910/- Total Rs.3,91,32,567/- 4. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed

Gandhi Pedapudi, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 65/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: K. Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Harshita Chouhan, SR-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

agriculturist, filed his Return of Income (“ROI”) for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 20.06.2017 declaring total income at Rs.3,42,790/- besides agricultural income of Rs.10,24,300/. The assessment of the assessee was completed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 30.12.2019 by accepting ... Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147 of the Act to verify the agriculture income of Rs.10,24,300/-. The Ld. AO completed the ITA No.65/Hyd/2025 5 assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 making addition of Rs.5,12,150/- out of the agriculture income

Sohan Singh, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Aligarh

Appeal is allowed

ITA 616/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 147

lakhs deserves to be treated as explained. 4. Learned counsel highlights the fact that the balance amount of Rs.1.18 lakh already stands accepted as agricultural income. Thus, we delete entire cash deposit of Rs.21.18 lakhs made in assessee's hands in very terms. 5. Next comes the second issue between

Alladi Krishna Prasad, Mandalaparru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tadepalligudem

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 172/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.172/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Alladi Krishna Prasad V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Aayakar Bhawan D.No. 3-73, Mandalaparru D.No. 2-1-56/1 Nidamarru Mandal Opp. Punjab National Bank West Godavari – 534198 K.N. Road, Tadepalligudem – 534101 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bcjpa7058L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144

apart from salary slips and two promissory notes of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, assessee has not submitted any evidence that he was earning agricultural income and dismissed the appeal of the assessee in the absence of supporting evidence. Before us, Ld.AR submitted that evidences were duly submitted

Sanjeeva Reddy Talla, Medchal Mandal vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1201/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

undisclosed income, as he could not explain its source. Additionally, he claimed that ₹15,00,000 was derived from agricultural income, but he failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. Since no verifiable proof was submitted during the investigation or assessment proceedings, the entire cash amount ... Rs.31,11,000/-:- The appellant submitted that he and his family owns around 54 acres of agricultural land and is earning agricultural income and contended that the source for Rs.31,11,000/-is from the agricultural income/savings. In support of this, appellant submitted the patta passbook and receipts issued

Kundan Singh Thakur, Raipur vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur (Erstwhile ITO-4(5), Raipur

ITA 477/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 477/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69

confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,80,000/- treating agricultural income shown by appellant as unexplained cash credit invoking 68. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and not justified ... Concisely stated, assessee is an individual, who filed his Return of Income (ROI) electronically on 15.09.2015, declaring total income of Rs.3,14,880/- and agricultural income of Rs.1,80,000/- for the year under consideration i.e., AY 2015-16. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny

Sushila Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 638/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Katariya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl.CIT (Thr. V.C.)

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Jigar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 519/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 115BSection 68

Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21 on 10.01.201 declaring total income of Rs.4,750/-. The assessee claimed exemption income of Rs.1,21,19,751/- being agricultural income. The assessee vide submission dated 05.03.2022 submitted that the assessee is engaged in agricultural activities and is having agricultural income and rent income ... Jigar Contractors Private Limited, Rajiv Properties Private Limited and Jigar Communication Private Limited. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment on account of agricultural income (non- business ITR) and large cash deposit compared to returned income. Accordingly, notices were issued. The assessee filed the details as mentioned on page

Smit Chhaganbhai Ardeshna, Alka Society Akota Vadodara vs. AO, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1534/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR

Section 234BSection 234C

tune of ₹4,85,000/- during the demonetisation period, in different banks. The source of such cash deposits was claimed as coming out of agricultural income, past savings etc. In view of the above, the assessing officer asked the assessee to file details of agricultural income, copy of ledger ... agricultural income and expenditure on agricultural produce, proof of receipt of agricultural income etc. However, despite issuance of several notices, the assessee did not file any reply before the assessing officer. On going through the return filed by the assessee, the assessing officer observed that the assessee had shown agricultural

Janakiraman Muthulakshmi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 2399/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2399/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Janakiraman Muthulakshmi, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.38, Kaveri Street, Rajaji Nagar, Corporate Circle-1, Villivakkam, Chennai-600 049. Chennai [Pan: Agopm0835D] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 147Section 250

that the only issue in the case is regarding an estimated addition of Rs.7,28, 830/- made by the Ld. AO in respect of agricultural income u/s 147 / 143(3) of the act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Ld.AO. The Ld. Counsel submitted that ... Coordinate Bench of this tribunal had directed the Ld. AO in assessee’s own case vide ITA No.641/Mds/2017 dated 08.11.2017 to consider 25% of agricultural income as other sources. The Ld. Counsel submitted that as compared to earlier years the agricultural income during the year under consideration is very small